Difference between revisions of "Whitehead2022"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Author(s)=Kevin A. Whitehead; Gene H. Lerner; | |Author(s)=Kevin A. Whitehead; Gene H. Lerner; | ||
|Title=When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation | |Title=When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation | ||
| − | |Tag(s)=EMCA | + | |Tag(s)=EMCA; person reference; Conversation Analysis; membership categorization devices; race; gender |
| − | |Key= | + | |Key=Whitehead2022 |
| − | + | |Year=2022 | |
| − | |Year= | ||
|Language=English | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Language in Society | |Journal=Language in Society | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Volume=51 |
| + | |Number=3 | ||
| + | |Pages=403–426 | ||
|URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/abs/when-simple-selfreference-is-too-simple-managing-the-categorical-relevance-of-speaker-selfpresentation/EFC9E53A1B15EF31C0991A0B05B89CD9 | |URL=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-in-society/article/abs/when-simple-selfreference-is-too-simple-managing-the-categorical-relevance-of-speaker-selfpresentation/EFC9E53A1B15EF31C0991A0B05B89CD9 | ||
|DOI=10.1017/S0047404521000270 | |DOI=10.1017/S0047404521000270 | ||
|Abstract=Membership categories such as ‘doctor’, ‘customer’, and ‘girl’ can form a set of alternative ways of referring to the same person. Moreover, speakers can select from this array of correct alternatives that term best fitted to what is getting done in their talk. In contrast, self-references alone ordinarily do not convey category membership, unless the speaker specifically employs some sort of category-conveying formulation. This report investigates how speakers manage the categorical relevance of these simplest self-references (e.g. ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’) as a practical means of self-presentation. We first describe how speakers forestall recipient attribution of membership categories. We then consider cases where simple self-references are subjected to subsequent elaboration—via self-categorization—in the face of possible recipient misreading of the speaker's category membership. Thereafter, we introduce the practice of contrastive entanglement, and describe how speakers employ it to fashion tacitly categorized self-references that serve the formation of action. | |Abstract=Membership categories such as ‘doctor’, ‘customer’, and ‘girl’ can form a set of alternative ways of referring to the same person. Moreover, speakers can select from this array of correct alternatives that term best fitted to what is getting done in their talk. In contrast, self-references alone ordinarily do not convey category membership, unless the speaker specifically employs some sort of category-conveying formulation. This report investigates how speakers manage the categorical relevance of these simplest self-references (e.g. ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’) as a practical means of self-presentation. We first describe how speakers forestall recipient attribution of membership categories. We then consider cases where simple self-references are subjected to subsequent elaboration—via self-categorization—in the face of possible recipient misreading of the speaker's category membership. Thereafter, we introduce the practice of contrastive entanglement, and describe how speakers employ it to fashion tacitly categorized self-references that serve the formation of action. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 06:15, 29 August 2022
| Whitehead2022 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Whitehead2022 |
| Author(s) | Kevin A. Whitehead, Gene H. Lerner |
| Title | When simple self-reference is too simple: Managing the categorical relevance of speaker self-presentation |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, person reference, Conversation Analysis, membership categorization devices, race, gender |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2022 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language in Society |
| Volume | 51 |
| Number | 3 |
| Pages | 403–426 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1017/S0047404521000270 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Membership categories such as ‘doctor’, ‘customer’, and ‘girl’ can form a set of alternative ways of referring to the same person. Moreover, speakers can select from this array of correct alternatives that term best fitted to what is getting done in their talk. In contrast, self-references alone ordinarily do not convey category membership, unless the speaker specifically employs some sort of category-conveying formulation. This report investigates how speakers manage the categorical relevance of these simplest self-references (e.g. ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’) as a practical means of self-presentation. We first describe how speakers forestall recipient attribution of membership categories. We then consider cases where simple self-references are subjected to subsequent elaboration—via self-categorization—in the face of possible recipient misreading of the speaker's category membership. Thereafter, we introduce the practice of contrastive entanglement, and describe how speakers employ it to fashion tacitly categorized self-references that serve the formation of action.
Notes
